4 ms·

Electrical charging on the road is expensive, because those are fast chargers, and not normal chargers a home would have. A ~7kw charger you'd install in a hom

Electrical charging on the road is expensive, because those are fast chargers, and not normal chargers a home would have. A ~7kw charger you'd install in a home or a business has is relatively cheap wiring electrically, and the stalls are not that expensive. Rivian adventure network uses chargers that have to output 220kw into the car. This requires significantly higher cost for getting electricity to each stall, the stall needs to be able to handle that much power transfer, and they must be actively cooled (since that much power causes a significant amount of heat). They also require a decent amount of maintenance. These stalls can cost upwards of $100k per stall for installation. This is all done so you can charge in ~20 minutes (as opposed to several hours it would take at a normal 7kwh one). That's why fast chargers cost significantly more. They also need higher profit margins to make back the installation and maintenance cost depending on utilization rates they expect, otherwise installing these chargers doesn't make a lot of sense for businesses.

ooterness 2y ago
Please use correct units. Kilowatts (kW) measure energy per time. Fast chargers (i.e., level 2, level 3) are rated in kilowatts. Kilowatt-hours (kWh) measure total energy. If you charge at 7 kW for two hours, then that's 14 kWh in total.
- KallDrexx 2y ago
  my bad, I'll update
PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
> They also need higher profit margins to make back the installation and maintenance cost depending on utilization rates they expect, otherwise installing these chargers doesn't make a lot of sense for businesses. While I respect the right of the business to make its own decisions about what the payback time ought to be, I'd also guess that other than replacing the very cheap jack/socket and the payment tablet, these devices will last decades. The only reason they need high profit margins is a desire for a short payback time, much, much shorter than the likely life of the device.
- evandijk70 2y ago
  Normally a long payback time is fine, but I would expect that in ~5 years, faster charging will be prevalent and the current chargers will already be obsolete, or at least less popular.
- fragmede 2y ago
  Given the fact that the other plug is basically the standard at this point and the fact that Rivan's doing the "Rivan Adventure Network" for Rivan vehicles, what's the usage? If they're only getting used 10% of the time, some back of the envelope math says charging $0.61 per kWh is the five year to payback timeline. What's an acceptable timeline to RoI for you that a business owner is allowed to have?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    From my POV, if a business owner buys a piece of equipment that can entirely reasonably be expected to last 20 years, the timeline for ROI is on the order of 20 years. Maybe 10, maybe 15. But I'm not insisting that this a hard and fast rule; rather, I'm suggesting that "a 5 year ROI" is also not a hard and fast rule.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      Is there anything resembling a guarantee Rivan will be around in twenty years? Not just a "yeah probably", but something solid that would make you feel good about placing a $100k+ bet on them being around?
      - vel0city 2y ago
        Is there anything resembling a guarantee Ford will be around in 20 years? What about Nissan? Stellantis?
        swores 2y ago
        That's completely missing the point they're making, they weren't calling out Rivian as different to competitors it was just an example brand for the discussion of what timeline is reasonable to plan over.
ballenf 2y ago
But shouldn't these fast chargers be doing much more "volume" of charges on a per-hour basis? I.e., if they can pump 3x the kWh shouldn't that somewhat alleviate the need to charge more per kWh?
- nemothekid 2y ago
  No, for most people who own an electric car, its cheaper (ex. charging at off-peak, and slower) and more convenient to charge at home. I only use those super chargers on road trips which isn't my normal commute.
chrisbolt 2y ago
> That's why fast chargers cost significantly more. Utilities also charge higher per-kW rates due to the high demand to be able to charge each car at 250 or more kW. https://pluginamerica.org/understanding-demand-charges/ https://pluginamerica.org/understanding-demand-charges/
Brian_K_White 2y ago
Meanwhile to fill the gas tank like in 1920 takes about a minute. And you can carry 100 miles of range in a pail.
- ryan_lane 2y ago
  It also likely gives you cancer over time. It likely also gives the rest of us cancer, asthma, and a number of other health conditions. It also poisons our water and air. You also must charge at a station, whereas electric vehicles can be charged at home, so this 20 minute charging situation is generally exceptional, whereas you having to drive to a station to fill up is a requirement.
  - dharmab 2y ago
    > You also must charge at a station I know this isn't usual for most people but it's fairly common for adventure vehicles to carry extra gas with them. I have a fuel bottle I'll take on my motorcycle if I know I'm going to be out in the sticks for a while, Jeeps/off roaders will carry jerry cans/rotopax, etc.
    - thejazzman 2y ago
      unless you fill those containers at home, you've only decreased your number of trips
      - Brian_K_White 2y ago
        No, you do not have to refill at a station. What a ridiculous thing to even attempt to say. The whole point of the comment was that you can refill anywhere. In the absolute middle of nowhere. Because "you can carry 100 miles of range in a pail" You can carry gas any way that you would carry water. You can walk and carry 1-3 gallons of gas and it only weighs a few pounds to get 30-100 miles of range in a modestly inefficient car that only gets 30 mpg, forget a hybrid that gets 50mpg. It takes hundreds of pounds and idk how many cubic feet of battery to give 30-100 miles of range. As for needing the infrastructure to produce the gas, well, A, you need equivalent infrastructure to create solar panels and copper wire, and B, you can brew various forms of deisel and alcohol from anything that grows with no infrastructure if you really had to. There are various low-tech ways to make electricity too, though you still need at least good wire which will be hard to make in a bathtub, but let's grant the wire just to be generous, so I think the whole "needing a station" is a wash on all points except the fact that there is no electric equivalent of how practical the fuel itself is to handle and transport. The closest might be, if you had extra solar panels, instead of walking however many miles to some other tank, you could sit and wait a day and get about 30 miles from solar in a day, assuming the vehicle is not in shade. .. even when I try to steel-man the other argument, it's still full of caveats for requirements and limitations that gas does not have. And you don't lose ANY in the transfer while pouring the gas from one tank to another. You lose a lot while using one battery to charge another, or when doing any form of transmission or conversion at all. And the tools and materials you need to accomplish the transfer are nothing. No exotic cabling to handle crazy amps without overheating, no computers to negotiate and monitor, nothing. And for all that energy packed into that gas, it's almost as safe as an equal pail of water. It isn't trying desperately to explode itself at all times only held back by undamaged films. You can throw a lit cigarrette right into a pail of gas and it just puts the cigarette out. If you spill the gas and create an area of dangerous fumes that would be easy to ignite, that danger actually dissipates in a few minutes all by itself as the gas evaporates to nothing. There is no comparison in utility. The advantages of electric are obvious and can not be denied. But there simply are also serious disadvantages that have not yet found any even remotely reasonable answer.

ooterness 2y ago

Please use correct units. Kilowatts (kW) measure energy per time. Fast chargers (i.e., level 2, level 3) are rated in kilowatts. Kilowatt-hours (kWh) measure total energy. If you charge at 7 kW for two hours, then that's 14 kWh in total.

KallDrexx 2y ago
my bad, I'll update

PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago

> They also need higher profit margins to make back the installation and maintenance cost depending on utilization rates they expect, otherwise installing these chargers doesn't make a lot of sense for businesses. While I respect the right of the business to make its own decisions about what the payback time ought to be, I'd also guess that other than replacing the very cheap jack/socket and the payment tablet, these devices will last decades. The only reason they need high profit margins is a desire for a short payback time, much, much shorter than the likely life of the device.

evandijk70 2y ago
Normally a long payback time is fine, but I would expect that in ~5 years, faster charging will be prevalent and the current chargers will already be obsolete, or at least less popular.
fragmede 2y ago
Given the fact that the other plug is basically the standard at this point and the fact that Rivan's doing the "Rivan Adventure Network" for Rivan vehicles, what's the usage? If they're only getting used 10% of the time, some back of the envelope math says charging $0.61 per kWh is the five year to payback timeline. What's an acceptable timeline to RoI for you that a business owner is allowed to have?
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  From my POV, if a business owner buys a piece of equipment that can entirely reasonably be expected to last 20 years, the timeline for ROI is on the order of 20 years. Maybe 10, maybe 15. But I'm not insisting that this a hard and fast rule; rather, I'm suggesting that "a 5 year ROI" is also not a hard and fast rule.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    Is there anything resembling a guarantee Rivan will be around in twenty years? Not just a "yeah probably", but something solid that would make you feel good about placing a $100k+ bet on them being around?
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Is there anything resembling a guarantee Ford will be around in 20 years? What about Nissan? Stellantis?
      - swores 2y ago
        That's completely missing the point they're making, they weren't calling out Rivian as different to competitors it was just an example brand for the discussion of what timeline is reasonable to plan over.

ballenf 2y ago

But shouldn't these fast chargers be doing much more "volume" of charges on a per-hour basis? I.e., if they can pump 3x the kWh shouldn't that somewhat alleviate the need to charge more per kWh?

nemothekid 2y ago
No, for most people who own an electric car, its cheaper (ex. charging at off-peak, and slower) and more convenient to charge at home. I only use those super chargers on road trips which isn't my normal commute.

chrisbolt 2y ago

> That's why fast chargers cost significantly more. Utilities also charge higher per-kW rates due to the high demand to be able to charge each car at 250 or more kW. https://pluginamerica.org/understanding-demand-charges/ https://pluginamerica.org/understanding-demand-charges/

Brian_K_White 2y ago

Meanwhile to fill the gas tank like in 1920 takes about a minute. And you can carry 100 miles of range in a pail.

ryan_lane 2y ago
It also likely gives you cancer over time. It likely also gives the rest of us cancer, asthma, and a number of other health conditions. It also poisons our water and air. You also must charge at a station, whereas electric vehicles can be charged at home, so this 20 minute charging situation is generally exceptional, whereas you having to drive to a station to fill up is a requirement.
- dharmab 2y ago
  > You also must charge at a station I know this isn't usual for most people but it's fairly common for adventure vehicles to carry extra gas with them. I have a fuel bottle I'll take on my motorcycle if I know I'm going to be out in the sticks for a while, Jeeps/off roaders will carry jerry cans/rotopax, etc.
  - thejazzman 2y ago
    unless you fill those containers at home, you've only decreased your number of trips
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      No, you do not have to refill at a station. What a ridiculous thing to even attempt to say. The whole point of the comment was that you can refill anywhere. In the absolute middle of nowhere. Because "you can carry 100 miles of range in a pail" You can carry gas any way that you would carry water. You can walk and carry 1-3 gallons of gas and it only weighs a few pounds to get 30-100 miles of range in a modestly inefficient car that only gets 30 mpg, forget a hybrid that gets 50mpg. It takes hundreds of pounds and idk how many cubic feet of battery to give 30-100 miles of range. As for needing the infrastructure to produce the gas, well, A, you need equivalent infrastructure to create solar panels and copper wire, and B, you can brew various forms of deisel and alcohol from anything that grows with no infrastructure if you really had to. There are various low-tech ways to make electricity too, though you still need at least good wire which will be hard to make in a bathtub, but let's grant the wire just to be generous, so I think the whole "needing a station" is a wash on all points except the fact that there is no electric equivalent of how practical the fuel itself is to handle and transport. The closest might be, if you had extra solar panels, instead of walking however many miles to some other tank, you could sit and wait a day and get about 30 miles from solar in a day, assuming the vehicle is not in shade. .. even when I try to steel-man the other argument, it's still full of caveats for requirements and limitations that gas does not have. And you don't lose ANY in the transfer while pouring the gas from one tank to another. You lose a lot while using one battery to charge another, or when doing any form of transmission or conversion at all. And the tools and materials you need to accomplish the transfer are nothing. No exotic cabling to handle crazy amps without overheating, no computers to negotiate and monitor, nothing. And for all that energy packed into that gas, it's almost as safe as an equal pail of water. It isn't trying desperately to explode itself at all times only held back by undamaged films. You can throw a lit cigarrette right into a pail of gas and it just puts the cigarette out. If you spill the gas and create an area of dangerous fumes that would be easy to ignite, that danger actually dissipates in a few minutes all by itself as the gas evaporates to nothing. There is no comparison in utility. The advantages of electric are obvious and can not be denied. But there simply are also serious disadvantages that have not yet found any even remotely reasonable answer.